The Dark One Posted March 26, 2010 Report Share Posted March 26, 2010 The specific models of planes used as a ploy in 9/11 had nifty built-in remote control override systems' date=' used here to direct the planes toward the towers. [b']Prove that the override systems were activated. Until you can actually provide something more than vague circumstantial evidence that seems to make sense, your baseless assertions are just that: baseless.[/b]Secondly' date=' lol@conspiracy theories. Seriously, this isn't a debate, because no intelligent individual in their right mind could actually think otherwise, and those who don't fit those qualifications aren't fit to be debating anything.[/quote'] Back up your arrogance. You can only fool so many people by acting like you know three quarters of f*** all. This has far less to with arrogance than the fact that the scientific community at large does not dispute this claim, and that regardless of Bush's abundant inadequacies, there is little evidence to suggest he would ever consider such a thing. In fact, I think we can take just the oposite from his personality. He was a nationalist and wanted to spread "American democracy" to other countries. I think inherent in that is a certain bias towards America that makes this action exceedingly unlikely. Past that, let's make a basic appeal to reason. If such an order was given, would it have been followed? Assuming it had been carried out, do you really think there wouldn't have been whistleblowers along the way? Even past that, this man was elected as the president of the United States. Come on, the Bush Admin was imperialist, sure, but not fascist.Third' date=' I do believe that the trade centers both came down within the hour. Could be wrong, but that's what I remember from the footage. Regardless, however, the planes were sufficient to knock them down. Earlier sabotage led to them to ensure that the trade centers could withstand a single-passenger plane, however a jet with at least a certain percentage of its fuel load traveling at high speeds. Different matter entirely. Didn't bring them down instantly, of course, but it did f*** up the structural integrity. THose towers were coming down and everybody knew it.[/quote'] The buildings came down instantly. Jet fuel burns at a range of 800°F to 1500°F, it would have had needed to burn at 2750°F to even melt steel. The buildings came down INSTANTLY. On a typical weekday 50,000 people worked in the towers with another 200,000 passing through as visitors. These were LARGE f***ing buildings. Seriously, consider how disproportionate your argument is based on a complete lack of statistics and you should easily recognize that a jet would hardly dent the place.Here's where you just lose grasp of the facts. The fuel is known to have burned at hotter than 1000 degrees for teh first fifteen to twenty minutes. Steel won't melt at that temperature, but it IS only 1/10 as strong as it is at room temperature. These were big buildings. That was the point When they suddenly only had 1/10 the structural integrity, their massive weight pulled them down. It is your argument which is disproportionate. While I have heard of those rumors of dynamite' date=' etc. I'm not sure I put much stock in them. Why send a plane into the building if you already had explosives to do the job? It's not like dynamite's that hard to get. THe issue would have been getting it in the building. And if you can get some in, then you can get more in. Which means no point in a plane. Regardless of whether it's attributed to terrorism or government conspiracy.[/quote'] Why should the government have any problem getting explosives into the building? WTC Security was Bush's to command. The goverment could waltz in and do whatever they want whenever. Random hoodlums couldn't. The planes were a ploy. Not a great one, but enough to fool total idiots, and that was enough for the Bush Administration. Sure, because the random government-payroll security officials are just gonna go ahead and plant dynamite in the biggest buildings in the country. Honestly, you need a reality check. I'm not an engineer' date=' so I couldn't tell you why the building didn't tip and fall. But obviously the plane didn't have enough force to actually move it that much. I suspect that it would have to do with teh massive weight. The only place it could go was down, because no force acting on it was large enoug to send it in any other direction.[/quote'] Now, wasn't that just the cutest thing I've ever read? Yeah buddy, you're not an engineer.Clearly neither are you. The steel was at 1000 degrees. You know from what I mentioned about what that means. Gravity pulled the buildings down. DOWN. not to the side. If the Bush Admin. was planning 9/11, why didn't the media have a clue about the attack? The media can figure out darn near everything. How was "the media" in any position to stand against the Bush Administration? The goverment controls the media.Prove it. Sorry kiddo, but just because your simplistic mind feels the need to manufacture a demonic threat where there is only incompetence doesn't mean that the world actually works that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted March 26, 2010 Report Share Posted March 26, 2010 It would have fallen down >.< Despite the massive momentum of the plane, the building was too heavy and had too much inertia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 I'm all for the insane right-wing extremist conspiracy theories, but I must say that this was not. People like to blame the Prez as an individual, but do you really think Bush is smart enough to pull this off? Plus, we do know for a fact that Muslim terrorists do exist, so they could very well have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted August 2, 2010 Report Share Posted August 2, 2010 Time for reverse-order quote block madness! I'm all for the insane right-wing extremist conspiracy theories' date=' but I must say that this was not. People like to blame the Prez as an individual, but do you really think Bush is smart enough to pull this off? Plus, we do know for a fact that Muslim terrorists do exist, so they could very well have done it.[/quote']These are LEFT-wing conspiracy theories. Right=doesn't trust other countries. Left=doesn't trust America. Scary true. Muslim terrorists exist, therefore they could have done it, is not a good argument. In fact, it is an awful argument. The fact that a piece of information was intercepted on 9/10 indicating the attack would occur, and was translated on 9/12, is rather more solid evidence. Why should the government have any problem getting explosives into the building? WTC Security was Bush's to command. The goverment could waltz in and do whatever they want whenever. Random hoodlums couldn't. The planes were a ploy. Not a great one' date=' but enough to fool total idiots, and that was enough for the Bush Administration. [/quote']So, the company involved in WTC security had ties to Bush. That's - well, honestly, it's a modestly strong lead. But now I'm supposed to swallow that a company put dynamite in the walls and no one noticed? How was "the media" in any position to stand against the Bush Administration? The goverment controls the media. That explains why news of torture in Guantanamo never got out. Oh...wait. If the Bush Admin. was planning 9/11' date=' why didn't the media have a clue about the attack? The media can figure out darn near everything. Maybe they were bribed. That helps explain the screwy economy.[/quote']"The media" was bribed? So you mean the New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, and every other news organization I can't bother to think of was bribed? Along with every little investigative reporter? And then you link reporters being given money to bad loans given to companies and banks? No, seriously. Think harder. TalkYou are aware that 9/11 occurred AFTER Bush was elected President? If Osama really did Hijack the planes' date=' he could easily have snuck dynamite into it couldn't he?[/quote']Those are on completely different levels. Hijacking a plane requires a few people to get plane tickets and sneak guns/knives/whatever on board, evading security. Sneaking dynamite into the WTC would require you to get people IN, then crack open the walls when nobody's looking, stuff in some dynamite, put the wall back together, and waltz back out. That'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.